get_crypto_risk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost ($0.02 USDC) as a key constraint, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or its side effects. The return behavior (e.g., whether it blocks, how often data updates) is not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return values, then appends cost as a critical behavioral note. No wasted words, perfectly sized for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should provide more structure about the returned data. It lists items (risk state, regime detection, etc.) but does not specify their format, order, or nesting. For a cost-incurring tool, completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input (empty). Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but it does explain what the tool returns, which compensates slightly beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides 'current crypto market risk state' with enumerated values (NORMAL/ELEVATED/HIGH), along with regime detection, equity tracking, and signal streaks. It distinguishes from siblings like get_crypto_signals and get_crypto_decision by focusing specifically on risk state, though it could be more explicit about the exact output format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_crypto_signal_history or get_crypto_decision. The only usage constraint mentioned is the $0.02 USDC cost, which implies economy considerations but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.